morvran said:
There is nothing afaik to prevent anyone else retranslating that work, or translating one of the many equivalent works into any other sort of Cornish. That this is not being done is probably because it's a rather silly game that no one else wants to play.

There's nothing to stop anyone producing a SWF/M copy of the same book (that *could* be used in schools and early education) provided you do your translation from the original, because the original is out of copyright. You could even use the same pictures as the original, and thereby produce a book that could be recommended for use in every school that teaches Cornish, and thereby pretty much guarantee sales in a restricted market.

Mike,
Let's see if I can word this so that even the meanest of intellects can follow it:
1) If I'd wanted my translation in SWF/M, I'd have written it thus.
2) If my publisher has wanted it in SWF/M he'd have published it thus.

Instead, we chose KS because it is:
a) very authentic,
b) very accurate.

By contrast, SWF/M is neither:
a) very authentic,
b) very accurate.

We accept KS, so that makes it (to use your phrase) "one of the accepted forms" of Cornish.

btw, I so admire your suggestion that those who disagree with your oh-so-impressive-and-erudite opinions need 'sense talking into them' ... Not!

It's back to the Primary School Playground Debating Society, evidently!

A proposed orthography which I am now calling KS1 did exist, but it was not a practical orthography; it was a proposal. The SWF spec could only address what it called RMC, RTC, and RLC. (It didn't actually say RTC, one of its internal inconsistencies.) In my view, its description of RMC is badly mistaken in terms of the way which RMC is taught by the UC/UCR community, reflecting a KK bias. But never mind that.

KS (which differs in many particulars from KS1) is now a practical orthography. But it was developed on the basis of the SWF specification. That is why it could not have been mentioned in the specification.

Bloody didn't, either. Got an abject apology from Todd and enough to purchase a Western Saddle (which are far from cheap)from Time Team. It had happened several times before and I ignored them but these two were just too much, and it had to stop.

As it turned out, I could only enjoy the Western Saddle (like riding in an armchair) for a few years because Larnie changed shape as she grew older. The pommel arch was getting too close to her high withers and I had to go back to the ball-busting English saddle (which I've always reckoned was designed by women for women). I could get the Western one refurbished and try it on Paddy.

As the original book in English is out of copyright, translating it into SWF/M and reproducing the illustrations does not, so far as I am aware, require your (or anyone else's) permission. Am I correct?

If you based your translation on the KS translation it would be a violation of copyright. Your original query was about "converting" the KS into the SWF. It would also be a violation of copyright to re-scan illustrations from the Evertype edition. To avoid that the original material would need to be re-scanned. And yes, there are ways to tell.

And yes, given the barely-concealed hostility which has taken over this thread, I would be inclined to check were another edition of the same book to appear from another publisher.

I thought I was correct about it. Anyone thinking to produce their own version would be better off never looking at your version to avoid even unconscious copying. I'm not advocating copying your version, my initial post in this thread was badly worded.

It does look odd that a publisher would choose to produce a beginners' Cornish book in a version that cannot be used for official education of beginners and in doing so deliberately cripple their sales.

This whole discussion is a bit ridiculous. The thesis seems to be that "schools cannot use the Kensa Lyver Redya because it is in the wrong kind of Cornish".

This is untrue. Schools may use whatever literature they wish. The Language Ladder and its exams must be in the SWF. That restriction doesn't apply to other literature.

R3D3, your statement that the Kensa Lyver Redya is "a version that cannot be used for official education of beginners" is false.

I chose to produce a beginners' Cornish book that was written in an orthography which is easy to read but which does not have the shortcomings of the SWF. Why should I wish to publish in an orthography with errors and inconsistencies in it, when those errors and inconsistencies are easily corrected?